>> good morning. today is monday, december 12, 2011. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. commissioner hechanova: good morning. i am sure everyone is getting ready for the holidays, carrying over from thanksgiving. one of the special announcements i would like to make is, san francisco was awarded the best marine building policy -- green

building policy award last week in durban, south africa, for its building ordinance. we had 22 other cities that competed against us. all told, we graded out to be the top in the category at the ordinance projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in san francisco and produce a 10-year present value of almost a billion dollars from those savings. that is great. the award is from the green in building council leadership award for excellence. it was a panel comprised of the un habitat and green building council. it is terrific, and most recently, mayor ed lee did a press release and also saluted staff efforts of the building

inspection department, and also the department of environment, public utilities commission, for their commitment to a sustainable and green city. along with that, i would also like to say thank you very much for some of the commendation that came about four ben mann of the staff, along with evelyn cart and their service for helping to produce the high level of quality and service to the public. they had been commended by that panel. last, and most importantly, i wish staff, commissioners a wonderful holiday -- let's close

out the year in a wonderful way and be blessed by all that has been brought to us, on the rising tide of economics, all the things that the commission has done and takes responsibility for. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item four -- i'm sorry, item three. public comment. this is the general public comment. if anyone would like to discuss items not listed on today's agenda. there is no general public comment. item 4. discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members

of the board of examiners. reappointments/appointments recommended by the nominations sub-committee are: michael cashion, high-rise sprinkler- building owner. seat to expire september 15, 2013. mr. cash john is present. commissioner lee: as you recall from the last meeting, the commission met about six weeks ago. week revealed -- we revealed three possible applicants to the seat. we recommended michael cashen to the committee because his presence was impressive, fit

what the board needed. he has been managing high-rise buildings. he is right now managing 255 california street, a high rise building. he lives in san francisco, has experience with dealing with advisory committees and the government as well because he was on the advisory board. that is why the nomination committee recommended to the full commission to appoint michael cashion to that seat. >commissioner walker: i would like to second that recommendation. commissioner lee: michael cashion, would you like to make a statement? >> hello, my name is michael cashion. i am very honored to sit on the board of examiners. i was on the graffiti advisory

committee for two years. i look forward to this next that in my service to the city. commissioner hechanova: commissioners? commissioner walker: thank you for being willing to serve on this body. you have been very helpful to this commission and looking at the safety issues of tall buildings, having good discussions. thank you for being willing to sit on this. an important position. >> thank you. >> there is a motion by commissioner lee, seconded by commissioner walker. is there any public comment on item 4? seeing none. we can take a roll call vote. [roll call]

the motion carried unanimously. now we need to go to the next item -- president hechanova, please read the oath. commissioner hechanova: please repeat after me. i will swear you in. the oath of office begins with -- i, michael cashion, do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states, and the constitution of

the state of california, that i will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of the division -- evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter, and during this time as i hold the office of a member of the board of examiners, high- rise sprinkler building owner seat of the city and county of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner hechanova: we all look forward to working with you.

>> item 5. update on process for cancelling permits and notification of customers. >> good morning, commissioners. we have put in your package item 5, which is the process for the cancellation of current applications. this is the main concern of the commission. right now, we send out a 21-day notice prior to the cancellation of any application for permits. as you see in the table, there are two values that are set for the cancellation. any project up to $1 million has 360 days from the date it is deemed acceptable for

building plan review, not when we take it in. and that is a big item, because it can sit in planning for any length of time, but when it comes to the building department for building plan review, that is when the clock starts ticking for the process in the department and cancellation of application. commissioner murphy: that is where the problem lies. it can stay in dbi for up to a year before it is kicked out. shouldn't that be the time of the clock starts ticking? >> no, the clock starts ticking at the beginning of the plan check, not the last. commissioner murphy: that is what i would like to see changed, suggestion to a change

in the code. >> we can take that to -- that is a whole different way of looking at it than the state looks at it. we can certainly look at it. commissioner murphy: it would be a good place to discuss that, the pac meeting, and then bring him back here. >> definitely, we can do that. we are also looking at increasing the time limit of the vacation -- notification, from 21 days to something longer, to give people more time to actually try to get the fund together to get the permits, plans renewed. commissioner hechanova: is there

a declaration sometimes why there is the delay, the basis by which the extension or approval of extension can be given, or is it automatically given? >> right now, we automatically give the extension. we have been giving more than one extension automatically. we have not been canceling permits just to cancel permits, unless the project sponsor wants the project cancelled. commissioner murphy: that was something we changed two or three years ago, a combination of 36 months. that is another problem now. that was 2008. a lot of these projects are homeowners, small developers, are still not able to get the funding, kick them forward.

i would also like to discuss that in the pac meeting, maybe 24 months, to get these extensions going. >> we can certainly discuss that in the pac meeting. commissioner hechanova: that would be another 24 months, 12 versus 24, 36? commissioner murphy: if the projects are within the envelope, planning should not have a problem with that. perhaps if you go beyond the envelope, they could take a look at it. there needs to be some kind of process put in place that these homeowners, stakeholders do not have to go back through the whole process again, two years in planning, another year in dbi.

we need to discuss that. commissioner hechanova: so it is a form of chewing up -- queing up continuity from where they were before? commissioner murphy: the 36 months is up. that is where we are now. a lot of these permits will be expiring, will not be able to extend thaem. we need to build something in there so that that does not happen. i am mostly referring to the smaller projects, and vertical, horizontal conditions -- whatever. would be unfair for them to go through the process again. commissioner hechanova: commissioner walker. commissioner walker: if you do

the initial renewal after the current timetable expires, does it really have to go through a planning and dbi review, or is that just a perfunctory evaluation of they need more time? >> if the project had been approved by planning for more than three years, we do send it as a cursory approval back to planning. quite frankly, we have won the night in the time that we had been doing this. commissioner walker: that is for the one that are more than 36? >> the one approved by planning 36 months before. commissioner walker: that seems to apply only to the larger projects? >> it can be any level of project. it can be a small home owner who cannot t